Posted
by
timothy
on Friday March 02, 2012 @10:56PM
from the if-you-don't-have-anything-nice-to-say dept.

New submitter DnaK writes "The Federal Communications Commission is reviewing whether or when the police and other government officials can intentionally interrupt cellphone and Internet service to protect public safety. A scary proposition which will easily become a First Amendment issue. Does the FCC have the authority to [regulate local or state authorities' decision to] take down cellular networks if they determine there is an imminent threat? The FCC is currently asking for public input (PDF) on this decision." According to the article, "among the issues on which the F.C.C. is seeking comment is whether it even has authority over the issue. The public notice asks for comment on whether the F.C.C. itself has legal authority over shutdowns of wireless service and whether it can pre-empt local, state or federal laws that prohibit or constrain the ability of anyone to interrupt service." Maybe they just don't like being upstaged by BART.

This is potentially scary, but not surprising, considering the recent developments in the UK (with SIM cards being remotely disabled by the government after being "Vetted" and determined to be spamming)

I picture the "discussion" like this,
High Level Bureaucrat at desk in impressive office (to self) - "Can we shut down cell phone service when we want?"
Answers self - "Of course we can. MWUHAHAHAHAHA!"

IEDs are often cellphone-triggered. That said, it's far more likely that "imminent threat" would be taken to mean "speech we disagree with"...

This will not change things with regard to IEDs, although it may change the IEDs to make them more dangerous. In general, it doesn't matter anyway, since IEDs rarely happen in the U.S., which is where the F.C.C. has jurisdiction, anyway, unless it's in a movie or in a television drama like N.C.I.S.. There is not a lot of unexploded ordinance lying around for the taking.

Another poster suggested a dead-man's circuit so that shutting down the cell access for the bomb is rigged to trigger it. The workaround would be for the authorities to evacuate, THEN shut down the network. The work around for the workaround would be to enable a motion detector, such that evacuation then shutdown would be ineffective.

On the bright side, if they think the way the parent poster does, it will only be a matter of time before it's a requirement to be able to shut down RFID in passports and credit cards, since that can be used to identify targets as well.

Of course that's not possible, but the workaround there, if it was, would be to couple an RFID reader with a motion sensor and use IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) such that you are at risk if you are not carrying an RFID device on the terrorist approved list when you go past the motion sensor.

Or to hack the system to shut down the RFIDs without the threat that the shutdown mechanism was intended to thwart, thereby disrupting commerce, as a terrorist act in itself. Of course... then aren't the BART authorities who shut down the cell network guilty of a terrorist act? I guess it's an administrative action if I do it and a terrorist act if you do it.

This is of course all ridiculous, and it's clear that what's really going on is a power grab to obtain the ability to shut down BART-like protests and/or flash-mob protests that are only protests when there are no police in the area to interfere with the protests.

IEDs are often cellphone-triggered. That said, it's far more likely that "imminent threat" would be taken to mean "speech we disagree with"...

No, it's not. The courts will allow shutting off cell networks for a national security issue. Life and limb trump free speech as shown with the "screaming fire in a crowded theater" example. Also, the public wouldn't be terribly upset if shutting off the cell networks for a few hours prevented a major or especially heinous terrorist attack, like cell phone triggered bombs in a day care center.

The very second that the state shut down cell networks to silence critics is the second that every media outlet b

Life and limb trump free speech as shown with the "screaming fire in a crowded theater" example.

Uh, quite the opposite, in fact. The "shouting fire in a crowded theater" case was about the government wanting to prevent people distributing flyers that opposed the draft in WWI, which might have saved some of the soldiers who died in that pointless war if they had refused to go.

Exactly. How long until cell phone coverage is shutdown during a protest because a change in public opinion would be a threat to national security? Cell phone are essential for reporting, especially when cops can take your equipment away because 'photography is now allowed'. Uploading picture as they are taken would allow the public to see what would remain hidden under load of disinformation. This is what corrupted government are really afraid about.

Except that terrorists strike where their efforts will be noticed. That tends to be where lots of people are. Disrupting the phone and radio networks (cb,ham) in such places is usually bad because what if someone needs to call for help? To bad you can't call 911 about that heart attack because the president happens to be in town today?

Life and limb trump free speech as shown with the "screaming fire in a crowded theater" example.

Actually they don't. You're free to shout "FIRE" in a crowded theatre even if there isn't one.

However, rights do not trump responsibilities. Your right to shout fire in a theatre must be balanced against the possible consequences - if someone gets trampled to death, you're responsible for manslaughter, possibly murder.

Likewise all the libel and slander laws - you're free to say what you want, but you're also resp

Unfortunately, these days with the Internet, people don't realize that their speech lasts a LOT longer than the moment it was uttered - it effectively lasts forever, and what was said decades ago can come back to bite you.

Can, yes, but not necessarily "does". About fifteen years ago there was a hilarious parody of Blue's News called "Yello There," and after being online for years, there is only a single trace of it left, and that's in the wayback machine's copy of my old gaming site ("Kneel" and I were cros

Actually, I just dislike "imminent threat." It sounds like a Hollywood screenplay. Evil Bomber trying to kill The President has placed an explosive device along his route which can be triggered by a phone call and it's up to two cops to track down the bad guy before he sets it off.

I mean, okay, in that scenario, you just say, "Why not just shut down the cell-towers? The phone attached to the bomb can't receive a signal." The President is safe and the two cops can leisurely go about trying to find the bad guy.

The problem comes up, though, that if it's such a good idea, why not just shut down the cell service along The President's route as Standard Operating Procedure. After all, we can't count on the Evil Bomber notifying the police. There could be one out there, so this will prevent it from detonating. Oh, and we should shut it off around whatever place The President is staying, too. For as long as he's staying. After all, it's for his safety. Suddenly, there is no threat--imminent or otherwise. But because you have the capability, why not use it?

What about other situations where there might be a danger? Protesters are known to have bombs. There's a protest planned for tomorrow at City Hall. Maybe it'd be a good idea to shut down cell-phone service--y'know, just in case. After all, we're talking about safety here--you can't be too safe. And, as a by-product, it'll keep them hippy kids from tweetin' and uploading images and videos when the cops go in with their clubs. But that's not what it's about, of course. It's about safety.

The Times article has a good example: a phone-controlled bomb or similar device. There's also a more general human C&C such as the Mumbai terrorist attack, which is apparently why satellite phones are banned in India now.

OTOH, the BART fiasco was a knee-jerk reaction so typical these days and that seems to be what prompted the FCC to do this. It is also clearly NOT an "imminent threat".

Here's the problem I see: there is a very clear ban against jammers in the USA, yet you see US manufacturers all over

What kind of threat could justify interrupting internet and cellphone services?

Let's just say that you're a Bart police officer and that you've just shot a man in the back [wikipedia.org], after you had already immobilized him on the floor. You better pray that your employer is able to kill all cell phone communications and internet traffic before any cell phone video is uploaded to Youtube, otherwise your quality of life for the next twelve months is going to be seriously threatened.

Seems to work ok in Caracas, Havana, Damascus, Cairo, Republic of Geogia,. Moscow, and Tiananmen Square. I think the government of every repressive dictatorship should be able to disrupt free speech, and public assembly. What's wrong with that?

Yes, you can. You can insist that the FCC has such powers only for the purpose of maximizing free speech for the public good. Shutting free speech down would violate their mandate and render them a non-entity.

You can insist that the FCC has such powers only for the purpose of maximizing free speech for the public good.

So here we see that sjames understand fuck-all about human nature and the use of regulation.

The simply fact is that no matter how many times you start with what you say as the core, it will be added onto by any government body over time until, like the irritant to the regulatory body it is, all traces of maximizing public good are gone.

For looking at my story and accepting it. Even if it was not selected as the article to hit the front page because of my terrible formatting and editing. I'm new to slashdot and still trying to learn the ropes! Please be forgiving:)
This news story caught my eye and immediately scared me a little that the FCC has any type of authority to shut down communications networks. How can shutting down access to emergency service numbers and other people ever help? Are we going to shut down local networks if we

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.[2]"

There is no right to drive; driving is a privilege. To be able to drive, you need to accept certain preconditions (be of a certain age, be able to see, not be drunk). Not using a cell phone merely adds one more precondition to the list.

I would hope that if the threat is significant and "imminent" that the FCC would just do whatever the hell they wanted, laws be damned, on the sole condition that the decision maker is held personally accountable for their decision after the threat has subsided, and that their accountability would be judged by the people.

In a situation like this, there would be some lengthy investigation, followed by the public firing of the lowest guy in the chain of authority that phoned AT&T/etc to tell them to turn off their networks.

As much as I like the FCC, what in the world would they need to do this for? This seems like a terrible way of stopping the "enemy" from communicating by stopping Citizens from communicating. The FCC has had my back in the past with our thought process on how communications should be handled, I'm glad they are asking for public input on this.

People use their cell phones for a lot of things, including calling for help from the police, fire, and other community protection services. There really aren't any public pay phones around any longer, so we rely upon our cell phones in order to contact authorities about dangerous situations. I think that BART should have been severely reprimanded and fined a LOT of $$ for cutting off the signal in San Francisco. Those that made the decisions should have been charged (IMO) with reckless endangerment of the

Well, I am ALWAYS of the opinion that more communication is better than less. It also lets the authorities more easily monitor the "opposition" in order to detect those with "bad" intentions. If they cut off all cellular communications, then the real terrorists will simple fall back to other means to coordinate their actions, such as public WiFi access points, satellite links, etc.

Well, I am ALWAYS of the opinion that more communication is better than less. It also lets the authorities more easily monitor the "opposition" in order to detect those with "bad" intentions. If they cut off all cellular communications, then the real terrorists will simple fall back to other means to coordinate their actions, such as public WiFi access points, satellite links, etc.

Don't get me wrong, giving any agency the power to do this is scary as hell to me. And I'm assuming this is not intended as something that would be done long term. However I did not RTFA, so I may be mistaken. Even so, these are supposed terrorists we're talking about. They are not the CIA or a covert branch of a national military. I seriously doubt there are fall back plans or redundancy in most cases. They trigger a bomb with a cell phone. They don't add secondary WiFi or satellite detonation devices.

I absolutely agree with everything you said. The failed "attempts" to breach our security has resulted in a greatly overloaded response, costing us million$, and the enemy zip/zero/zilch. Plus, they get to eliminate some of their more vulnerable "allies"...

I'm not an American, but I understand the the FCC has overarching authority over Spectrum Regulation.

In that sense, local Police or other State organizations would be acting illegally if they interrupted communication without FCC aproval.

Presumably the FCC want to test the right of State organizations to be able do this.

It gets more complicated than that. There is a law prohibiting willful or malicious interference with radio communications, for example, and there's a whole debate about whether it should apply in this kind of circumstance (it was passed in response to threats to the public safety from interference in police communications). There are also common carrier laws requiring the FCC to be contacted if someone is going to discontinue common carrier service--but the FCC has generally exempted mobile services from

Actually the FCC already has the authority to shut down any radio communications anywhere in the USA. The only thing under discussion here is the speed at which they can do it - immediately, or after a FCC memorandum/order and several months of processing time.

The airwaves are a government regulated resource which it reserves the right to limit access to at its discretion. Way things are set up, you could quite legally, totally loose access to the airwaves at any time for a verity of reasons. I am fairly confident the constitution protects your right to free speech, not your right to emanate electromagnetic waves at any power level or frequency. One might suggest a 28th amendment establishing that right if it is a major concern. In the end, denying access to wireless communications while inconvenient, does not inhibit the ability to speak, only the ability to disseminate information which isn't a protected right.

You have the right to say, write, or believe what you want. Beyond your mouth, you do not have the right to access the means to tell anyone else.

Remember, you choose to be dependent on your cell phone and the Internet.

I am fairly confident the constitution protects your right to free speech, not your right to emanate electromagnetic waves at any power level or frequency.

Which part of the constitution lets the government tell you what you can and can't do with radio waves?

Would you claim that the first amendment would be satisfied if the government said 'you're free to print whatever you want, but we're banning the printing press and anyone found with one will be executed'?

The airwaves are a public resource, which we allow the government to regulate for us to prevent the tragedy of the commons. That doesn't give the government the right to take that resource away from us entirely.

It would be like asking a friend to house-sit for you (you know, feed the dog, take in the mail, etc) while you're away, and coming home to find that he's changed the locks because he's worried you might make a mess of the place.

Normally I think/. is excessively paranoid about this sort of thing, b

Its unfortunate that as our continent slides deeper and deeper into a fascist wet dream we feel satisfied quibbling over minutia on the internet. I love this forum, some of the most engaging and thought provoking conversations take place here, but I feel like it might be time for the smart people to organize something in meat space. In terms of systems theory, we have the energy and venue, but they have a stranglehold on communication. For this race to survive we need some big sacrifices.

Not to sound too cliche, but freedom isn't free. If the cost of the government not being allowed to shut down our communications is the occasional bomb being triggered by a cellphone, so be it. This is rife for abuse. Oh, people are protesting in DC and they want to send in the riot patrol? I hear there might be a bomb in the area, better shut down the networks!

Not to sound too cliche, but freedom isn't free. If the cost of the government not being allowed to shut down our communications is the occasional bomb being triggered by a cellphone, so be it.

Amen to that. Besides which, it will only force terrorists to tech up, and use something they can't conveniently block. They only use the cellular network now, which provides opportunities to trace back and find the source, because they don't have to use packet radio.

The FCC is asking the wrong people. If they are unsure if they have the authority over the decision of local and state governments to take down cellular networks, the very first step should be to ask Congress. The FCC only has the authority that Congress has given it. So, the first step is to ask Congress if Congress believes that the laws that Congress has passed give the FCC this authority. If Congress' answer is no, that is the end of the discussion. If Congress' answer is yes, the next step is to determine whether or not Congress has the authority to regulate the decision of local and state governments to take down cellular networks. That is a more complicated question and more difficult one to answer, but if Congress has not delegated anyone the authority to do so, we do not need to examine the question of whether or not they have the authority to do so.
A more difficult question is whether or not local and state governments have the legal authority to take down cellular networks, and if so, under what circumstances. However, the answer to that is independent of whether or not the FCC has the authority to regulate if and when they do so.

It really does not matter whether you think congress would give the FCC a productive answer. Congress is the only group that can clarify whether or not they gave the FCC the authority to take the types of actions they are contemplating. The failure of Congress to answer the question should be interpreted as a no.
Personally, this move by the FCC strikes me as an attempt to garner public support for an expansion of federal power. That is, the FCC knows that it does not have the statutory authority to insert

The congress that gave them the power is no longer around. I do agree that this move looks like an FCC attempt to increase their own power, but I think your idea of how the government should work is not a very common (or practical) one.

From the perspective of the law in the U.S., it is the same congress. I am more interested in government working in a way that strictly limits its powers than I am in government working in a way that is "practical". Totalitarian governments are very practical.

I am not particularly interested in the government working at more than a very basic level (enforcing contract law, forcing people to respect basic property rights). Our government is currently involved in many more aspects of the lives of its citizens than I think is good.

Government won't protect you from the tyranny of the majority. This has been proven over and over throughout history. If a large enough majority, for example, wants to enslave a minority, then they can. Ultimately if the people around us want to hurt us, they can.

If something truly is a matter of life and death, then yes of course they should do whatever needs done and let the pundits bitch about their civil rights after. If I were a police officer, agent, or whatever and the only thing standing between me and saving one or more lives was some rule about people's "liberties", I'd tell them to go to hell and do what needed done. That's what any ethical human being should do.

That's not the problem: The problem is that the authority in this country can't be trusted. Decades of abuse of power has led the public to be generally mistrustful of authority -- and with good reason. And more often these abuses, along with their misconduct, mistakes, and every other bad thing gets swept under the rug. People who question it are outed as "terrorists", and put on watch lists for not being patriotic enough.

The question really being asked here isn't if they should have that power or not: It's how the hell can we trust them given how badly they've abused our trust in the past? The fact that this is even newsworthy is pretty telling: We've gotten to the point where we are willing to risk our lives and those of our fellow citizens to try to hold on to what pathetically few civil privileges we have left to us. They aren't even rights anymore: We just don't want to be the next poor bastard to make the evening news so our friends, family, and coworkers can give each other furtive glances at each other and wonder how it ever came to this.

That's the real story: That all levels of government have become so corrupt that the public no longer trusts it even in the face of a clear and present threat.

This is an easy question, since it's similar to the "this terrorist knows the location of an armed atomic bomb - can we torture him to save a city?" one. You simply require people (e.g. government employees) to obey such orders when lawfully received from their superiors, but make it an offense [in the case of torture, a capital offense] to initiate such orders. So anyone - e.g. the president but really anyone in the chain of command - who really believes she is likely to save a million people from a bomb

This deserves to get modded up. I think the disincentives you give are excessive, but the general idea is sound.

I'd propose:Giving the order to torture - you must immediately be turned over to the Hague. They'll decide what to do with you.Giving the order for an internet shutdown - four years in prison and a fine of 150% of your net worth (thus bankrupting you, and taking a portion of your future earnings).

Obviously a Constitutional amendment would be required, if only to prevent your VP from taking your

Does the FCC have the authority to [regulate local or state authorities' decision to] take down cellular networks if they determine there is an imminent threat?

I'm not sure which scares the hell out of me more. Giving the FCC the power to do this. Or the agency that will have the power to do so if it's not the FCC. I don't like the idea of the FCC having this power, but I like the idea of DHS even less.

I know that the Internet is usually against government power. But people, in this case, you WANT the FCC to trump local laws. For decades now, the FCC has has the sole power to regulate antennas, emitted power, signal purity, etc. And for decades, it has done this in a positive manner, as an enabler rather than as a restriction.

Up until now, the FCC's power has trumped the petty Napoleons in your local government. For example, your HOA might rule about the obtrusiveness of your antenna. Whether it is

In wartime, congress (with the help of the FCC) has shut down radio communications modes before. They've even coordinated plans to do such shutdowns on very short notice, google "CONELRAD".

I would far rather put this in the US congress's hands via the FCC, than in local law enforcement's hands. It's not that I think the world of the current US congress, but rather it's their inability to get together and agree on ANYTHING. Contrast with local yokel law enforcement and city councils setting up a patchwork